I agree with Simon; it's better to be explicit. I can't
see a solid justification for omitting them. I do,
however, dislike seeing "abstract" prepended.
If nothing else, including "public" (and excluding
"abstract") makes it easier to cut-and-paste from an
interface into a class implementing the interface.
-- Adam
On 2/15/06, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm...
>
> I never use public in interfaces - and with IntelliJ, you can even
> change the settings so that you get a warning on that.
>
> AFAIK, it's supposed to be good code style to leave those public
> modifiers out, but don't ask me where I've read this. Reading too much
> these days ;)
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 2/15/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yup. We also use the optional { } around if else statements in this
> > project for similar reasons.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > On 2/15/06, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 12:31 -0500, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> > > > On 2/15/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > there is no need to say "public" inside of interface
> > > > >
> > > > > each method defined is public and abstract
> > > > >
> > > > > same for constants.
> > > > >
> > > > > "public static final" is not needed
> > > > > all constants are
> > > > >
> > > > > public static final String x = "x";
> > > > > same as
> > > > > String x = "x";
> > > >
> > > > Thanks. I suspected it might be something like that, but I'd never
> > > > seen it done that way before, and wanted to make sure.
> > >
> > > That's why I typically use "public" and "static" keywords in interfaces
> > > anyway; not everyone is aware of these interface features. It doesn't
> > > make the bytecode any larger, and cannot be misunderstood...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.irian.at
>
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Consulting, Development and
> Courses in English and German
>
> Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
>
